Continuing Professional Education and the Internet: Views of Alberta Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists have identified barriers to accessing continuing professional education (CPE) in the traditional face-to-face formats. One alternative to traditional, centrally located, face-to-face CPE is course delivery through the Internet. PURPOSE: This study examined Alberta occupational therapists' perceptions of Internet-based CPE. METHOD: A questionnaire was mailed to 800 randomly sampled Alberta occupational therapists (response rate = 35.5%; n = 281). RESULTS: Respondents pursued CPE to increase skills, knowledge and maintain clinical competency. They reported that a face-to-face CPE course was more useful than distance courses. Although almost 90% of respondents had access to computers with an Internet connection at home or at work, and nearly 65% thought that their computer knowledge was sufficient, only 2.9% had previously taken Internet-based CPE. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In order for the Internet to be accepted as a common, useful and alternative delivery tool for CPE in occupational therapy, the perceived barriers such as the lack of personal time, cost, and limited interaction with other learners and instructors will need to be addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".